Hello, all yes, hello, are you there awesome, we did it yeah hello and welcome to the five hundred and thirty eight politics podcast, I'm gay Landruk's. No, we are mostly almost exclusively on american politics podcast, but periodically. We've looked across the pond to Brexit for lessons on democracy and our current political moment globally, and that's what we're going to do today. So yesterday, on Wednesday, british Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, announced that he ass queen to suspend parliament for a month, beginning shortly after lawmakers return from break in September. The queen approve the request, which will shorten the amount of time members of parliament have to debate a brexit deal. The deadline for a deal is October 31st, when Britain is

jewel to exit the European Union with or without a deal the speaker of the House of Commons, a conservative called the move, a constitutional outrage and there's been in fourth over what it means for norms and laws in Britain. So here with me to discuss, Boris Johnson suspension of parliament and more are two professors that regular listeners will be familiar with as our brexit experts they are. David runs a man who is the head of the department of Politics and international studies at the University of Cambridge, hello, David hi and also with us, is Helen Thompson, a professor in the Cambridge Department of Politics and international studies focusing on political economy, hello, Helen hi again, and they also hosted the podcast talking politics with. I recommend to anybody who's interested in global politics, hello, and let's begin with the basics. Can you explain for an american audience exactly what the Prime Minister is doing from a world perspective? Well, that's not a straight for questions around, so I'm afraid. A lot of this depends on the fact that we have had well it

unusually inverse in a two year parliamentary session. So it's near two years since the last queen's speech, when a government sets out its legislative agenda because of Brexit an because there really hasn't frankly been any other legislative business. There wasn't a queen speech last year. So what Boris Johnson has wanted to do is to bring this part true session to an end start another one which involves having a queen speech into time, that, in relation to the country break such such, that there's going to be potentially significantly less time for parliament to act in ways that might stop his government. I'm proceeding with no deal. If that is what his gun, which is today yeah, I mean. I think that the really key question here is the timing issue. So pro road in parliament is something that a silence that it it is a routine part of the british constitution. It's the timing of it. The fear of opponents of Brexit was always the boys, a Mite pro parliament during

and over the end of October, so prove in parliament from sitting during the time where the no deal will actually happen and he's not done that in many ways he still left many options ope for people who want to stop his government pursuing its policy he's just shrunk, the time in which they can do it considerably. The other thing about Bergen Parliament that matters in this context is once it happens, everything that did it gets annulled, so you have to start legislation or you have to start again. So during the period the british Parliament will not be sitting, they can't pick up where they left off. Why parliament resumes in the middle of October be a new session and everything will have to start afresh, and that does make it much harder for the Anti Brexit to get that way, but it doesn't make it possible. I mean this is not, though, there's a lot of talk about a coup and suspension of democracy. It's not that Boris also has simply shut parliament down he's just show parliament's options, and so the politics of this is

many ways more significant than the constitutional implications. What is the political strategy here? What is Boris Johnson hoping will happen at the end of all of this Helen can answer this in the second. I think it's important to say that my feeling is the strategist. Here is Boris Johnson senior current senior advisor Dominic Cummings person he hard just a few weeks ago to run this strategy. This has Cummings is think it's all over it. It looks like the political she here is not just to squeeze parliaments or options, but frankly, to provoke the kind of outrage it has provoked. It is a goading strategy, as well as a straightforward attempt to make for the opposition to get its way, and we just assume that everyone is preparing for the general election, that's coming in months or possibly even weeks, and it will be a peep versus the parliament election from the barrister, Saint Dominic, coming side yeah. I think

the other thing, though you have to bear in mind, is, is: is that this, as it always has done, involves the European Union and that I would say that as Johnson's preference would still be to try to proceed with an orderly brexit. We some change to the withdrawal agreement that parliament would then, except by the thirty first of October. Now, there's got to be some questions about, even if he was able to get an agreement that he thought was satisfactory out: the EA summit in the middle of October, whether they would still be enough legislative time in order to get the withdrawal agreement on the political declaration through the the House of Commons. But leaving not question aside. I think that one of the things that he wants to do with the actions yesterday- and I agree with david- that this is a lot to do with Dominic Cummings thinking- is to try to convince the EU that parliament is not, in the end, an impediment to the UK, leaving without an agreement, because

unless there's any fear at all on the EU side that no deal might be the outcome, there isn't any pasta. Is he doing anything that will change the agreement or the political declaration in any way that would make getting the withdrawal agreement through parliament possible David? You said that it was an overstatement to call this a coup. Obviously that's a very strong word. Is this a constitutional crisis? Well, what's happened makes sense in the terms of the british constitution. I don't think it's the case that the Boris Johnson government straightforwardly has done anything unlawful. I mean there was some thought that the queen ought to have resisted. There's a kind of irony here. I think there's a comparison with the United States, where people on I find themselves hoping that the FBI would rescue them from Donald Trump. In Britain, people on the left are now thinking with. She is going to rescue them from Boris Johnson she's. Not she did constitutional duty, which is to follow the advice of her ministers on questions of prerogative power and that's what this is it's going to reach the ports already in Scotland.

Action is underway, may eventually reach the Supreme Court Supreme Court. Not quite like yours, not least it's a very new institution. No one quite knows what happen and when it does reach the courts, there will be deep constitutional implications, but I think, for it is more of a political crisis than a constitutional crisis, but it is a real political crisis because it has set parliament against the executive and the stakes are very high and the stakes are very high for the people involved and they are very high for Boris, but whatever he does. The stakes are high, because he's committed to leave the European Union on the 31st of October do or die so the options for him are. We all die how this is all very interesting from a political science spectre, but also a little amusing, given that a monarchy is pretty four into Americans. Is there a sense that the queen was inappropriately brought into the quagmire of Brexit Paula?

I don't see that she that she has been thus far, for the reason that that I'm David said is: is that she's not sing on the advice of of her ministers? I think that what we have seen from some point during the year is is that in different ways and at different times, both sides or some people, I should say on both sides have constructed my did in which the queen is going to. You know right to save them from what they think of it as a terrible fight, either of of Brexit being defeated old press. It happening on. It's just implausible. To think that the core I mean, who has been an extremely effective on it for a very long period of time, is going to politicized only in this way on either side in a moment of national crisis. It's simply not going to, but I mean you could say aside from anything else. The monkeys got quite a number of other problems at the moment without throwing it, since it is the one I would say there is. There is a pause

ability here that that where this is going to lead, it may not happen, but it could lead to a vote of no confidence in the government and if the guy fools and there is no to create a new government. So in a sense, if there are no ministers to advise the queen, I mean they will would be someone in post. But if that person is Authoritie has gone, then it does become more of an acute political question. What the man he decides. There are at least potential scenarios in which the choice- the next Prime minister, proceeding a general election does draw the been or her non ministerial advisors into politics. It's still pretty remote. That's the only way it's going to happen. The thing that's never gonna happen ever is that the queen refuses to follow the advice of her can't additionally appointed Prime Minister, that would the suicide for the monarchy and she's not going to do it so to be a little far fetched momentarily according to Britain's constitutional monarchy. Is there

roll that the queen theoretically could play in resolving what clearly seems like a political crisis? In the sense that there's a popular mandate to leave the European Union and not the political tools to make it happen in an orderly in theory, is there any role that the queen could play in this? Now I mean the only question I think would be at the moment if there was a general election and there were another hung parliament what the queen would do or could in relation to who was the next prime minister, because if you go back to the general election of February nineteen, seventy four she actually asked TED Heath, who was the incumbent Prime Minister, first toe have a ago forming a new government. Even though that the conservative party was no longer the largest party in the in the out of the House of Commons. Some people think that's the news. The queen's come to making some kind of of political decision in regard to the Prime minister's, but

I think that, in the circumstances that we would be looking at after buy a hung parliament, then it's quite difficult to see a replay of one thousand nine hundred and seventy four in action. Yeah, the queen is probably a distraction in this issue that the resolution of this crisis is political crisis is come in one of two ways: easy going to happen in parliament or there's going the general election and the general election will change the political landscape. I mean the case, though, there's been a lot of complaining from the people who are outraged by what Boris Johnson has done, that he has prevented parliament from her it's a but this parliament I spent a lot of the three years having it say, and it's not really got anywhere, and that is a big, but the problem, parliament itself fundamentally divided the political parties are divided. It's a very fractured landscape within the House of Commons. It very hard to see any lasting resolution to the brexit crisis without

New Parliament and a new parliament only comes about after a general election, the queen she can prorogue this moment, but the one that meets after the Queen speech is the same people there anyway, you change the personalities you vote them out. She can't do that. Alright. So now that we've gotten the fun queen related questions out of the way welcome back to back to reality, what are the possibilities going forward? Is this suspension is Perot? Getting a foregone conclusion could not happen at all and then also. What is the opposition party likely to you are try to do in response? Well, I'd be very surprised if they can be a successful legal challenge to the programmer parliament. I mean I don't rule out because said so many things on various podcasts it turned out not to be right, then I'm going to put the having it into anything. I'm gonna get going Thio to say about this. I think that the ball is really back in the court off those who want to stop brexit or

this is. This is a difficult question as to whether to terms of the people who want to stop Brexit, which I think is large, what they are rather than the people who want to stop no deal, which is the way that they would like to present cells. As being they made a move the day before the program of parliament sort of trying to suggest that they that they that they were going to act as a people's parliament. I think the phrase. What was the phrase that cause I used to ensure that no deal didn't happen, but they have some choices to make now. The choice is, I think, really between whether they want to proceed with a vote of no confidence that could lead the formation of an alternative government if it were successful or whether we want to take the opportunity which will be there in early September, when there will be a short period when parliament returns to try to legislate something sim,

but to what was done in March was called the Kuiper Letwin Bill which effectively instructed the executive too quest on extension from the EU. Twenty seven two article fifty and getting used the phrase opposition party- I think- and that's the big issue here, which is who do we mean when we talking about the opposition party? So if we're talking about the formal offer in the Labor Party, that's one thing: the Labor Party is split, but also there for parties priority throughout on Jeremy Corbyn's leadership has been to forces election that they hope they might win. The is what sometimes called the rebel alliance, which is the collection of people who, in different ways and for different reasons, want to prevent Boris Johnson from pursuing his stated policy of leaving on the thirty October, and that rebel alliance includes the person you mentioned in your introduction, the speaker of the the commons, John Tacoma, you called a conservative. I think most conservatives would be spluttering over there. Corn flakes

that description. They don't think of him as a conservative at all anymore. Oh really and there's a group of people yeah. Not only is he ostensibly neutral and he was a conservative as the speaker. He is doing everything in his power. Now it's quite clear to oppose the policy of the conservative government, so there's a whole group of people who potentially can come together around Brexit, including the labour leadership, but they are themselves very divided. So there's like the british version of a never trumper yeah I mean it's: are they never Johnson is 'cause Johnson seems to provoke some pretty outrageous reactions? Are they never exit ears or are they never know? Dealers? I think what they are is never know, dealers and and on that basis we can agree on quite a lot. Unfortunately, what they can't agree on is either strategy or tactics. They can agree on some principles by shortening the time that they have available. To do this Johnson has made it will Cummings, I should say, has made much harder for them, but not impossible. You know there is. There is

brief period before probation, which is next week when parliament can make some decisions, and then there is the brief period after prorogation before the 31st and before the crucial european summit, when it could also make some decisions. The one thing has fundamentally changed since Theresa May's time is when Theresa may was, Prime Minister and parliament legislation requiring that she asked for an extension. She could do that John. We couldn't do that. So an extension for Johnson is death. He can't go beyond the 31st of October and survive so were he somehow to be forced by this parliament to ask for an extension? It would be effectively the end of his prime ministership. So that's why the stakes are so high and the thing that the Johnson administration wants to prevent

home and having the opportunity to pass the legislation requiring an extension and not time frame is not very, very tight. It's not impossible. It is very, very tight. It should say I think it could be out of the that he could be forced the E. You could say no in principle and even if it said yeah, it could attach such conditions to it. That Johnson would say no to- and I think that is a certain weakness in the stop- no deal position, because there isn't any way that they can Monday Johnson to accept any conditions, however, that the EU twenty seven might attach to the extension or an extension. I should say I mean one reason that this is a political crisis that touches on a constitutional crisis. Is there is some quite loose talk about this government rule using to do what parliament mandates so, for instance, one or two people have said: were this government to lose a vote? No confidence it would refuse to quit. Paula

could pass legislation requiring of this government x or, while Zed and the executive, let's say: no, then the conditions under which the executive would say no take us into uncharted territory. I mean, then we are well beyond the fights that took place in the May administration. Then we are in a straightforward contest between executive power and legislative authority and in the british thanks, I think much more so than in the american case. We don't know what happens because we don't have those fights right. What traditionally happened was the executive loses the confidence of the legislature. It falls, but what happens when a legislature votes on executive out on the active refuses to fall? I don't think they would do that, but I don't know anymore. I think one of the it's really sitting, at least from an analytical point of view, is, is that we have a constitution in which president, judging in relation to experience, is supposed to be central, but we then made

a constitutional change, even though it wasn't presented like that at the time, which was the fixed term. Parliament active, wasn't least presented in the very acute terms in which actually has had consequences that has made that all presidents in regard to the relation between the executive and the legislature in regard to confidence votes is out for the window. So actually we are already in new constitutional waters because of this, the legislation that was passed during the two thousand and ten to two thousand and fifteen parliament from an american perspective not having a written constitution, as is the case in Britain, is again kind of interesting or somewhat confusing. So when we talk about a constitutional crisis, if there isn't one clear document that stands as the constitution of the United Kingdom, is it just a fact of violating norms or creating problems that it seems like the system as it exists? Can't

what do? What do we mean by a constitutional crisis? In the british context? That's a good question. A lot of this is new, and I think part of the challenge here is that the role of the courses relatively unclear, because so much of this is convention, and yet is a concerted attempt. It began a couple of years ago, with the Gina Miller case, to use the wants to assert some principles that go beyond conventions that are actually it's possible to say that certain actions are unlawful under the of the UK institution, but all of those unlawful acts simply in relation to individual pieces of legislation, including potentially the fixed term parliament back there, not under full in relation to a single codified document that people can refer to. So you can chop and change and pick your legislation to try and make your case that the has been broken and parliament passed a piece of legislation recently recently a kind of not trivial,

contrived piece of legislation around Northern Ireland on the need to report on the current state of devolved government in Northern Ireland in order precise, really to be able to make the case now that the suspect the parliament is unlawful. So I think what we mean by constitutional crisis in this sense is that the conventions being turned by some people into league requirements that other people are denying, but that's so from the american context, and it's and also, I think, because we re we don't know what the soup in court in this country thinks is the scope of its authority here, because we also very strong convention that parliament decides parliamentary business so, for I think the Supreme Court could reconvene Parliament Supreme, even if the parliament put the class that probation is illegal. It's not clear that the Supreme Court can actually do do anything about it. That's what the show have a UK constitutional crisis looks like. It looks like chaos yeah, I mean, I think, that we have to put the

idea as having a constitutional crisis into a much longer perspective. I mean, I think that there's an argument that says is essentially that we in an ongoing constitutional crisis of one kind another since we joined the European Community, does it then was in one thousand nine hundred and seventy three 'cause. We change something that was fundamental to our concert and the idea that parliament and parliament alone could legislate, and then we didn't face up to what the constitutional consequences of that and I haven't done that we made a whole series of other constitutional changes, not least in in relation to the way in which the Union of the United Kingdom ARM was governed late to the introduction of a human of the Human Rights ACT, certain pieces of legislation. That said that things couldn't happen unless the referendum took place, all these created a constitute no mess without, as I think collectively, as a country facing up to what

we're doing in making all these out changes. So we've got ad hoc changes over A4 four decade period that were fully understood that messed around with president, and then we say we're supposing a constitutional crisis in relation to constitutional students in norms that, in some sense, no long exists. In that sense, I think that it's entirely predictable that we floundering around constitutionally at the moment and at the same time that allow pretty much anybody to say that a position that they are pushing for really what our political reasons is actually something that they are doing, because the other side is committed, some kind of constitutional outrage. The other thing to say is that I think we will have a sense of what a future constitutional crisis might look like and it may be coming sooner than later, which is the break of the union. So the the context- and we discussed it before with you Galen, is- is brexit in context involve government in the UK, but particularly to Scotland, and the creation of a scottish parliament

case this enormously and it's to see how we're not heading a long way further down the road, if not all the way there to Scott Independence and we're certainly heading down a road that that's going to be tested again. The new this morning in the UK is that the leader of the Scottish Conservative Party, Ruth Davidson she's, a very popular, a centrist figure, only speaking Anti Brexit, or at least so anti no deal figure and therefore a critical Boris Johnson from inside the conservative party has resigned as the Scotty Conservative, leader and Boris Johnson has made great claims that he is a unionist. He is the leader of the but unionist party, but his paw. He doesn't seem to be able to straddle the union anymore. It's it is itself breaking apart here and at some point the big I think constitutional challenges to be the contest between whatever the expense the government decides and resistance in Scotland from the

british parliament again that may end up in the courts. It probably will, but that the fundamental question I mean that's the story that goes back hundreds of years. That is a fundamental question about and challenge too centuries of constitutional order, and we all we're not there yet, but we're a lot nearer that when we were even twenty four hours and we're a lot nearer than we were for five years yeah when we had the last test of independence that resignation, that resignation was as a result of this geisha. No. In her words, I mean it's just unfortunate coincidence. You believe that if you want it's primarily because she wants to spend more time with her new child and so because she can no longer stomach. Broadly speaking, the government's brexit policy. But you know, timing is everything in politics and she chose to resign this morning, and so one thing that we've talked a lot about in the United States over the past three years are the

all that norms play in democratic system and that not everything that guides our governance is codified into law from a political science respective. What role do norms play in maintaining a functioning democracy outside of what's actually written into law? In Britain, in particular, I mean constitution in many ways is rested on this notion that there were certain things that you could legally and constitutionally in a formal sense do, but that you shouldn't do because that they were at odds with a customs of norms of the country that was being governed now, that only works, if you have some reasonable agreement, at least amongst those in in parliament, about what those norms are and how they relate to the customs, the political customs of the country. Now I think it's fair to say that in practice that

the United Kingdom has actually long had quite a lot of discussion about what that these norms and customs are, you had a period, for instance in the in the run up to the the First World WAR weather was effectively a a constitutional conference, because the country was seen as being in a constitutional crisis and couldn't carry on in the. Why are at which it was, and that did involve also the relationship between the executive, the legislature in and the people, and it also involved the question of the union. So in one sense, is that Britons. Have this straight on United Kingdom should have this strange politics that is simultaneously relied on the idea of norms, and then, when you look for them in practice, you can't often find them. But I think that happened at the moment is the way in which a whole set of different things. The political polarization that brexit in itself has produced the political visitation at the tensions in the union, particular in regard to Scotland, have produced the fact that we

gauged in constitutional change without seeming and what the consequences of doing so were have all come together. Uh actually made it made exposed the fact of of how hollow, in some sense the whole idea of having a constitution based on any kind of agreement, let alone agreement about specific things, whether they be laws or norms actually has become what, but I would add that is that there is this kind of fraying of norms going on, but it's not awful just confined to politics. There's a wider social setting for this, including the way in which people communicate discuss about all of the Mister visions, many of which are political, but not all of them online and in the various sort of tribal groupings that we've all formed ourselves into, and there is one of meetings about the last twenty four hours in Britain. Is that this you know this fraying is happy and everywhere so each side, the other side is breaking the norms your norm. Breaking is my calling out like it is, and vice versa, and there is a so this

inflation or escalation of language which happens around all of these disputes. So everyone is accusing everyone of having committed a coup and the apart he thinks. What are you going to say when an actual coup happens? Yeah we're? I don't want to sound pumps about this, but was slightly valuing the language, the norms that we rely on, one of which I think is that you don't escalate. You don't go to the mattresses straight away. You are relatively, or at least you try and be relatively proportionate in your responds and Bridgeport, so the last two to three years has become increasingly disproportionate in its response on all sides: it's a social as well as a political phenomenon and praying of norms, which is definitely a part. This story, I think Paul the is that we think it's somehow happening in politics and on the part of pro politicians. I think we're all place it in this.

Maybe maybe you are on five hundred and thirty eight, but everyone else is we try our hardest responsible and I really enjoy this kind of political science, theoretical based conversation getting back to the on the ground politics between now and October. Thirty. First, what are the options? So it sounds like there could be a vote of no confidence. There could be a general election. There could be some new agreement with the European Union. We don't know what are the options looking down the pike and why looks likely or unlikely I think, all of those so die it Cummings who, for now at Lee, seems to be running. The show is fame for his great admiration of Bismarck, because he thinks he's only any politician in modern history who could see it all can see. All the permutations could see the multiple decision, trees and all the possible routes and he's one questions. He's reveling in this sense of awe

limitless possibility. Here the EU could shift on the backs too. The irish government could shift on the backstop are voting. No confidence could happen. Parlor could get its act together. The rebel alliance could finally discover that they have more in common than we realize. All of these is it possible, with the clock ticking where there is Fulton the default is a no deal brexit. I think everybody bar a few members of the conservative party, but even then very few people government want to avoid no deal brexit. I think Johnson, to avoid it. There is so the possibility that a general election will come at a very quick moment in this for all sides, either just before or just after brexit, and then we really are in unprecedented territory, it's impossible to think of a british general election happening in the middle event. The event that to meant to resolve seems like a real possibility here that people will be able to vote in a general election which, after all, is not a referendum, so they're not being asked to vote on Brexit they're being asked about who they want to be,

and by for primary domestic reasons, for their pocketbooks for their schools, for their hospitals in the of the event that that election is needed to resolve. That's the thing that to me got comes closest to really being off the air. What we're familiar with- and I think, could well happen. The number of things that are actually different than where we were we put in some sense like we were facing the same set of choices back in March, including then the possibility of a general election is what has changed is the domestic political situation, and I think that it it's changed in in three ways. It's change, first of all by the emergence of the Brexit Party as a rival to the conservatives. That can explain quite a great deal. I think of the shift in the conservative party since March, where you have many more Mps who now appear willing to at least go along with creating a crew

will threat of no deal compared to what was the case in March. The second thing is that the liberal Democrats have basically shoved out of the way the change Uk Mps and emerged as the strongest party, leaving aside the scottish Nationalists in the Welsh National in Scotland and Wales, of the Stop Brexit Party that explicitly to that position and their new leader has said. I'm an interview. I think it was either lost this week or last week that she she won't accept, leaving the European Union, even if the, even if the electric voted for a second time in a referendum. And the third thing that has happy is that the Labor Party has simultaneously moved close to a remain position

at the same time that some of its Mps, who actually want Britain to let all these think Britain should leave. The European Union have come out in the open and saying that they regret not voting for Teresa Maze agreement. So the Labour party, I think, is, is more fractured in terms of its at least is overt positions than it was back in March, and I think something that Dominic Cummings was trying to do was essentially to try to create in the domestic politics of it, leaving brexit aside from itself the substance of it aside for the moment to create a kind of a switch between. Are you in favor of when it really comes to it Brexit, even if that means no deal or are you in favor of Jeremy Open, and so he wants to. In that sense, I think he's been quite effective in pushing the remain parties, including the lower party, under Corbyn's leadership, into

close to alliance with each other that is actually going to cause them all. In the end, quite some difficulty I've asked before- and I know it's difficult to know exactly because there's so many different options and so many different ways that you can ask the british public what they want. But at this point, what does the british public, the polling evidence is relatively clear, hasn't moved much, but there's been a consist and small majority of people who think that it would be better not to leave the European Union or, depending on how the question is framed. That breaks was a mistake. That's not the same as there's a majority of people who think that the result of the referendum shouldn't be respected. You know, there's a kind of hypothetical aspect that question: do you it hadn't happened and then, given that it has happened, should we go ahead with it and the second one is harder to test. But my feeling is that no one should assume that there is a clear majority of people in this country who think that the results of the

friend um should be overturned and the other thing that this government is doing- and I know we keep talking about Dominic Cummings, but he does seem to be central to this strategy and he has said he doesn't say much. But it's one of the few things that he's on record as having said that it's become the catch phrase of this government, which is that politicians do get to choose which public votes they respect, and that would be a slogan in this general election. Other thing he's trying to do is to divide politics between the people who will, even if they regret it and wish it hadn't happened, respect the result, democratic event on the people who, in some sense of being forced to say they will overturn the result of that democratic event. Again, I don't think we know what will happen there because to fight a general election on those terms is really hard even over a short campaign. We just have four week, maybe even ocean this case, for we can it's been four weeks. Other issues intrude in two thousand and seventeen Theresa may thought she could win an election comfortably by saying. If, but for me I'll give you respect result of the referendum, it turned out to be

election about completely issues, regular domestic politics, which is the Labor Party's home. So no one knows, but I think the strategy is clear: it is to make Paula binary along the lines that this government thinks might favorite, because I think it's suspect that when it comes to the crunch, there are quite a lot of people in this country who wish breaks. It wasn't happening to a very uncomfortable about returning the results of the referendum. It doesn't have to be a huge number of those people for it to be enough to keep this government in business, but it's a high wire act at this point in time. Does it look like if there were to be a general election before October 31st that Boris Johnson could be successful in gaining more seats in part and having a majority behind him? The arithmetic is complicated because it does look like he's lost schottland, so he's lost intense eats there. There are conserved pizza.

We remain areas which are hugely vulnerable, so you'd have to pick up seat somewhere else. It's still pretty hard, it's a huge gamble, but it is possible yeah. I mean, I think, that the thing that he- but I think most worry about in trying to realize this is- is that the Brexit Party hasn't really been defeated. It's been, it's been weakened significantly. If you look at the pulling that you can still see it pulling in some polls up to about fifteen percent, sometimes it's put down about seven hundred or eight percent, but even at seven or eight percent is at the high end from the conservatives point of view. So, although that the conservatives have now got a relatively steady lead in the polls because of the liberal Democrats, recovery in taking votes away from labor, I don't think they've and he's got anywhere near enough done

in terms of unifying the leave vote into the conservative party to be confident that election could be one particularly as David says when you then to start from the premise that seats will be lost in Scotland and also in some parts of the southeast of England as well, and one last thing on this: there is a kind of catch for John in which is Nigel Farage. The leader of the Brexit Party has said he will enter an electoral pact with Johnson, but condition is what he calls a clean brexit or what other people call a no deal brexit, but the trouble with an deal brexit is that okay, so he may then get the Brexit Party on side, but he's going to scare the hell out of a lot of centrist centrist voters, on the other hand, word Johnson to get a deal which kind of warmed up version of Theresa Mays Deal with some tweaking about the backstop through parliament, which he just about. Could who knows it's unlikely, but he could. If Europe moves a bit too, that will be much better news for him with those centrist voters, but the Brexit Party might be furious and fight him.

There is no good option there. For him, I mean one is a risk and I don't think he's going to be choose either which one he prefers he's just going to have to take what he gets. But we've learned that Boris Johnson. I think we always knew this about him that you know when he goes in he's all in. I mean he is at some level someone who's quite come with high wire politics show as usual, when I've talked to the two of you. There are a lot of options and there's no telling what will happen next. One thing: I am curious about you saying that we don't tell you what's going to happen, for I mean we talk about the possibilities and their significance, but you know we're not going to just pull predict,

and I don't know where we do not here. At five hundred and thirty, eight have a brexit forecast model telling people when it will happen. If it will happen how it will happen, I'm sure that would make Nate head explode, but I do want to ask about that deadline. October 31st. We heard a lot of doomsday scenarios about what could happen if there is not a deal by that day, people able to get their pharmaceutical drugs. There is a rekindling of conflict in Northern Ireland. Are those do wednesdays scenarios realistic? Is that what hangs in the balance? In all of this I mean I things we want to see where we are is in because it you know it is it's very difficult to know what this guy of the the problems would be in in the face of no deal. Would it be extraordinary day, but I think that, if you so in a general sense, the answer is yes. What does that mean in whole ton of

civic sensors? Then I'm not sure, and I think that you can't in trying to think about that, leave out the question of what the political response not only in the country would be to no deal. But what the political response in island would be to know deal is what the political response uh european countries would be will be this something that would ask for a few days and then we, then we will be back into negotiations. I think that it's not that in politics and then we're going to go into you know like whatever we want to call it dystopia and then the two are just going to disconnect from each other. The politics is still to be there from the moment that no deal starts and it is going to shape what the consequences of it will be. I would agree, I mean clearly it's economically precarious and there are some pretty grim scenarios. This is a we'd like everywhere else, we're just in time economy. We have very operate on very fine margins, including supplies of basic goods, and it could go

badly wrong, but depends a lot on human psychology to a lot of this there's not just some independent space where I know deal happens and then it's con. These are foreordained. A lot depends on human beings, respond to the uncertainty, and that, like Helen, says, I think, goes back to the politics, and the one thing I would just reiterate is the thing that we don't know is this: if this happens, this thirty 31st no deal scenario happens either. Just before or just after, or even during a general election, then we're yeah we're not just in child uncharted political territory. We uncharted psychological territory. Your politik things will be either holding or losing their nerve on the graph scale and will be not least, the test of peoples T to withstand huge pressure, politicians and the public too, and I think anyone would be free to say they know which way this will go and we live in not just just in time economy, but

we live in a social media landscape where cascades of information and cascades of rumor and cascades of of fear and panic can be quite real. So it's I mean I think it's worth taking those doomsday scenarios seriously, but I think it would be a mistake to think that and the thing about the doomsday scenarios for all day and it's not yeah. I think that is absolutely right about the psychological aspects of it and the way that relates to politics. I mean in Britain after year three years I think many of us have had to get used to a rather different relationship to politics in daily life. Then we before even those like David and I have spend our careers thinking about politics. Now that's one in terms of what's happened in the last three years or the most just over three years. Now. Is it if we were to move into a no deal situation against the backdrop,

is this still would be intense political drama? Indeed, the political drama would actually, I think it be more. I'm cute, it's very difficult to know how many people are going to react to the it's not difficult to sing that quite a lot of it might be sort of blind panic about what does happen, but I wouldn't want to you know, like rule out the possibility that things might turn out in terms of the ways in which people react to it more complex fashion than just saying is going to be running around in a headless kind of way. Going. What on earth do I do yeah? It will be trusting. Indeed I mean I'm I'm insulated, and I look forward to talking to you when it when it does happen or doesn't happen, and it just to end here. Does it seem like the likeliest scenario at this point? Is that either with are negotiated, withdrawal agreement or no deal at all? Britain will leave the European Union on October 31st. I would say yes simply because this government and this pro

the staff and the many and the people around him, many of whose career is not depend on him and his success cannot survive an alternative scenario. So he do anything his power and they will do anything in their power to make that happen, it doesn't mean it will happen, but certainly naming an alternative scenario. That's likelier is impossible. All pos alternative scenarios close to something which is maybe fifty fifty, but the likeliest name outcome now is Britain leaves on the 31st I'd, say it it's more probable than not that Britain will leave the European Union. I think the 31st of October. I I think that if you go to a position where it was possible to do some legislation that required, you know like a few more weeks of parliamentary activity, then I I think that and the alternative was no deal then I I think that it would be strange for Boris Johnson government to say that it wasn't going to happen that we're going to have to leave without a deal. So I'm

not reasonably sure you can't be reasonably sure about anything, but I certainly would put the balance of probability on on Britain leaving the european unit in the end, but I someone absolutely to say that that means will be by the 31st of October, so the thirty five of October is Halloween here in the United States. Is it also Halloween in Britain it is yeah. That's why the traditions that we borrowed from you thanks alright. Well, I'm sure it will be an interesting halloween for all, but anyway, let's leave it there. Thank you and David for joining me today. Thank you. Galen thanks Helen Thompson, professor in the Cambridge Department of Politics and international studies, focusing on political economy and David. Once a man is the head of the department of Politics and international studies at the University of Cambridge, they host the podcast talking politics, which again I

recommend that folks go check out. My name is Gail and Rick. Jake are low. Is our intern a special thanks to sorry well, upper reach and Jane Darby Menton? You can get in touch by emailing us at podcast at five thirty, eight dot com you can also, of course, we did us with any questions or comments. If you're a fan of the leave us a rating or review in the Apple podcast store or tell someone about us. Thanks for listening and we'll see you soon.